Columbia EIP 2016 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do we know which firms have a hard GPA floor above stone--not that you must have stone, which I assume is pretty common, but that you must have, say, a 3.5 or a 3.6? I figure S&C does, but not sure about others.

- Arya Stark

W&C, MTO, and WLRK all require a high 3.7-3.8. Covington DC also definitely requires north of a 3.6, BSF also around there.

About the list I expected. Would you expect these floors to be firm, or is there flexibility depending on other variables (e.g., undergrad, work experience, LR)

There are definitely other considerations, but I'm not sure I'd call it flexibility. URM status helps overcome a <3.7 GPA (but even URM needs good grades). Work experience and going to good schools are pretty typical of the people at the top of the class anyway that these firms seek to recruit. So it doesn't really make your grades less important.

[moonman157]

is the median 3.33 or a little lower?

3.29/3.3 GPA, am i median, or do i need to be bidding like I'm below median and avoiding high % honors offers?

I would imagine that it wouldn't matter much if you're "median" or not if you aren't Stone. Since we don't have our GPAs on our resumes, the thing that stands out is honors, and if that's not on your resume/transcript (and it's not on yours), then you're already placed in a different category. Of course, it's better just even from a glance when someone has the grades for a 3.3 than if someone has the grades for a 3.0, but no one outside of Columbia's office knows what "median" truly is, and interviewers certainly aren't going to whip out a calculator to try to compute your GPA. Bid like you're below median and focus on the firms that have big class sizes and low honors %. If you've got other good factors (work experience, great interviewer) you can throw in some reach firms, but make sure you get the ones that fit the criteria I mentioned. Those should be your focus.

[TheoO]

Grades matter even below the stone range. Having solid Bs or majority Bs is going to increase the risk of strike out, all things being equal. I know people who have done very well even with majority Bs, but they tended to be really personable and have experience. If you're solid B+s, there is far more breathing room.

Also, you don't need to have exact GPAs to get a sense of standing. By just looking at a transcript I can get a pretty good sense of where you are in the class, and so can employers.

[Anonymous User]

Grades matter even below the stone range. Having solid Bs or majority Bs is going to increase the risk of strike out, all things being equal. I know people who have done very well even with majority Bs, but they tended to be really personable and have experience. If you're solid B+s, there is far more breathing room.

Also, you don't need to have exact GPAs to get a sense of standing. By just looking at a transcript I can get a pretty good sense of where you are in the class, and so can employers.

Interesting. I kind of thought firms were looking at GPAs themselves based on how many people have been differentiating "high" stone and "low" stone

[TheoO]

Grades matter even below the stone range. Having solid Bs or majority Bs is going to increase the risk of strike out, all things being equal. I know people who have done very well even with majority Bs, but they tended to be really personable and have experience. If you're solid B+s, there is far more breathing room.

Also, you don't need to have exact GPAs to get a sense of standing. By just looking at a transcript I can get a pretty good sense of where you are in the class, and so can employers.

Interesting. I kind of thought firms were looking at GPAs themselves based on how many people have been differentiating "high" stone and "low" stone

It's also easy to recognize a low vs. High. A handful of firms are more strict and will have people with calculators (I saw some cravath recruiting people last year talk about using calculators). Most don't, however, and it wouldn't really be an issue.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, it's more just that it's very easy to eyeball the difference between a 3.7 transcript and a 3.41 transcript even though both are "Stone". The problem is that Stone is basically a meaningless honor since like 40% of the class gets it.

[jbagelboy]

Yeah, it's more just that it's very easy to eyeball the difference between a 3.7 transcript and a 3.41 transcript even though both are "Stone". The problem is that Stone is basically a meaningless honor since like 40% of the class gets it.

its not meaningless. its definitely the most significant distinction between 1Ls academically.

for the vast majority of firms that care about grades at all at CLS (and many firms aren't selective wrt grades), stone is the ballgame.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, it's more just that it's very easy to eyeball the difference between a 3.7 transcript and a 3.41 transcript even though both are "Stone". The problem is that Stone is basically a meaningless honor since like 40% of the class gets it.

So is "high" Stone above 3.6 or above 3.7? People throw around "high Stone" like it's a useful distinction but nobody seems to know what exactly it is.

[Anonymous User]

I would appreciate any thoughts on my very tentative bid list, which is listed below. I am hoping to pick up some pre-oci interviews as well.

Low stone, with 2 HPs (for whatever they are worth). 2 years of work experience and probably above average softs. Solely interested in litigation/arbitration.

* Bids = New York offices unless otherwise noted

1. Sidley Austin (2)
2. Skadden (3)
3. Debevoise (4)
4. White & Case (5)
5. Clifford Chance (6)
6. Weil (6)
7. Allen & Overy (8)
8. Ropes & Gray (9)
9. Paul Weiss (11)
10. Cahill (12)
11. Wilkie Farr (11)
12. Cleary Gottlieb (14)
13. Davis Polk (15)
14. Freshfields (17)
15. Latham (17)
16. Fried Frank (17)
17. Covington (18)
18. O’Melveny (19)
19. Cravath (23)
20. Hughes Hubbard (21)
21. Baker Botts (21)
22. Dechert (22)
23. Jones Day (24)
24. Simpson Thacher (27)
25. Shearman & Sterling (*)
26. Hunton Williams (27)
27. Wilmerhale (DC) (27)
28. Shepard Mullins (29)
29. Hebert Smith Freehils (*)
30. Foley Hoag (Boston) (*)

nix wilmerhale

not sure if CSM is in the box either

Cravath is possible with low stoane

[Anonymous User]

People need to stop talking about DC like it's some unattainable goal. For almost every firm, their standards for DC aren't significantly different than NY. OCI and stupid stuff people say here do a huge disservice to students who want to work in there. I've had discussions with partners at a couple of firms in DC and the one thing that's said the most re: recruiting is some variation of "we'd love to take more CLS people, but they don't apply." When I tell them that everyone says DC is next to impossible, they look at me like I'm a lunatic.

For context, when I had my call w/ OCI to talk about the bid list I'd submitted, they told me I had "very little chance" at getting DC and basically no chance at three of the top DC firms. What they didn't know was that I already had pre-EIP offers from all three. That’s the chasm between what people say is possible and what actually is possible. OCI doesn't have your best interests at heart. All they care about is getting everyone into a firm. The safe play for them is to cover their own ass by telling everyone who isn't Kent to play it as safe as possible.

You definitely have to be smart about playing the numbers. I'm not telling anyone to bid DC 1-10 and then miss out on interviews with other firms. Load up on large NY class sizes and rank them high, then fill in other spots with reach firms and non-NY markets. However, if you want to work in DC, you have to bid on fucking DC. There is nothing wrong with spending a decent (but still relatively small) number of bids on DC.

Unrelated: Last year the FFB stuff apparently shifted wildly from the previous year. I’m assuming this must be because people dropped a good number of the most early bid firms to the bottom of their lists as a trade off to move others up even further (I heard 4, even 5 spots). It might be useful to employ a strategy like this instead of just cutting 1-2 firms and shifting all the rest by that amount.

[TheoO]

I imagine that if you want DC but don't want to risk losing bids, you could probably just email all the DC firms pre-EIP and express interest. A lot of people pick up DC firms because they seem available and they don't have anymore space for the more difficult nyc bids. They rarely fill up their slots.

[smaug]

People need to stop talking about DC like it's some unattainable goal. For almost every firm, their standards for DC aren't significantly different than NY. OCI and stupid stuff people say here do a huge disservice to students who want to work in there. I've had discussions with partners at a couple of firms in DC and the one thing that's said the most re: recruiting is some variation of "we'd love to take more CLS people, but they don't apply." When I tell them that everyone says DC is next to impossible, they look at me like I'm a lunatic.

For context, when I had my call w/ OCI to talk about the bid list I'd submitted, they told me I had "very little chance" at getting DC and basically no chance at three of the top DC firms. What they didn't know was that I already had pre-EIP offers from all three. That’s the chasm between what people say is possible and what actually is possible. OCI doesn't have your best interests at heart. All they care about is getting everyone into a firm. The safe play for them is to cover their own ass by telling everyone who isn't Kent to play it as safe as possible.

You definitely have to be smart about playing the numbers. I'm not telling anyone to bid DC 1-10 and then miss out on interviews with other firms. Load up on large NY class sizes and rank them high, then fill in other spots with reach firms and non-NY markets. However, if you want to work in DC, you have to bid on fucking DC. There is nothing wrong with spending a decent (but still relatively small) number of bids on DC.

Unrelated: Last year the FFB stuff apparently shifted wildly from the previous year. I’m assuming this must be because people dropped a good number of the most early bid firms to the bottom of their lists as a trade off to move others up even further (I heard 4, even 5 spots). It might be useful to employ a strategy like this instead of just cutting 1-2 firms and shifting all the rest by that amount.

I'm giving advice to the averages, not the exceptions. People do get firms with grades that are outside the range where folks give advice, but they shouldn't count on this.

Also if this is because I told someone they were being aggressive with the WH DC office your post is very misguided. Many firms have similar standards for NY and DC. WH is not in that group, though.

[Anonymous User]

If we have below median grades but strong ties to a secondary (but major) market, how many secondary market bids would you feel safe including? I know that I'll be filling the rest with large NYC firms.

[Anonymous User]

..

[Anonymous User]

Grades matter even below the stone range. Having solid Bs or majority Bs is going to increase the risk of strike out, all things being equal. I know people who have done very well even with majority Bs, but they tended to be really personable and have experience. If you're solid B+s, there is far more breathing room.

Also, you don't need to have exact GPAs to get a sense of standing. By just looking at a transcript I can get a pretty good sense of where you are in the class, and so can employers.

Interesting. I kind of thought firms were looking at GPAs themselves based on how many people have been differentiating "high" stone and "low" stone

It's also easy to recognize a low vs. High. A handful of firms are more strict and will have people with calculators (I saw some cravath recruiting people last year talk about using calculators). Most don't, however, and it wouldn't really be an issue.

FWIW, every firm I know about (and at this point in my career, that's 4 firms) uses calculators. The only difference is whether they use them on the spot or before they decide who to give callbacks to.

[TheoO]

If we have below median grades but strong ties to a secondary (but major) market, how many secondary market bids would you feel safe including? I know that I'll be filling the rest with large NYC firms.

Secondary markets almost never fill up and can be picked up in add drop. Honestly, you can probably just email those markets you have ties tof late in July to get interviews with that at eip.

[TheoO]

Grades matter even below the stone range. Having solid Bs or majority Bs is going to increase the risk of strike out, all things being equal. I know people who have done very well even with majority Bs, but they tended to be really personable and have experience. If you're solid B+s, there is far more breathing room.

Also, you don't need to have exact GPAs to get a sense of standing. By just looking at a transcript I can get a pretty good sense of where you are in the class, and so can employers.

Interesting. I kind of thought firms were looking at GPAs themselves based on how many people have been differentiating "high" stone and "low" stone

It's also easy to recognize a low vs. High. A handful of firms are more strict and will have people with calculators (I saw some cravath recruiting people last year talk about using calculators). Most don't, however, and it wouldn't really be an issue.

FWIW, every firm I know about (and at this point in my career, that's 4 firms) uses calculators. The only difference is whether they use them on the spot or before they decide who to give callbacks to.

Ugh, it's honestly such a braindead and lazy way of deciding things.

[Anonymous User]

Should we be starting to contact firms now? Or should we wait until July?

[Anonymous User]

People need to stop talking about DC like it's some unattainable goal. For almost every firm, their standards for DC aren't significantly different than NY. OCI and stupid stuff people say here do a huge disservice to students who want to work in there. I've had discussions with partners at a couple of firms in DC and the one thing that's said the most re: recruiting is some variation of "we'd love to take more CLS people, but they don't apply." When I tell them that everyone says DC is next to impossible, they look at me like I'm a lunatic.

For context, when I had my call w/ OCI to talk about the bid list I'd submitted, they told me I had "very little chance" at getting DC and basically no chance at three of the top DC firms. What they didn't know was that I already had pre-EIP offers from all three. That’s the chasm between what people say is possible and what actually is possible. OCI doesn't have your best interests at heart. All they care about is getting everyone into a firm. The safe play for them is to cover their own ass by telling everyone who isn't Kent to play it as safe as possible.

You definitely have to be smart about playing the numbers. I'm not telling anyone to bid DC 1-10 and then miss out on interviews with other firms. Load up on large NY class sizes and rank them high, then fill in other spots with reach firms and non-NY markets. However, if you want to work in DC, you have to bid on fucking DC. There is nothing wrong with spending a decent (but still relatively small) number of bids on DC.

Unrelated: Last year the FFB stuff apparently shifted wildly from the previous year. I’m assuming this must be because people dropped a good number of the most early bid firms to the bottom of their lists as a trade off to move others up even further (I heard 4, even 5 spots). It might be useful to employ a strategy like this instead of just cutting 1-2 firms and shifting all the rest by that amount.

I'm giving advice to the averages, not the exceptions. People do get firms with grades that are outside the range where folks give advice, but they shouldn't count on this.

Also if this is because I told someone they were being aggressive with the WH DC office your post is very misguided. Many firms have similar standards for NY and DC. WH is not in that group, though.

WH DC gave out more offers to non-honors students last year than WH Boston, LA, and NY combined. Very possibly a one off; however, it is worth noting.

[Anonymous User]

It's also easy to recognize a low vs. High. A handful of firms are more strict and will have people with calculators (I saw some cravath recruiting people last year talk about using calculators). Most don't, however, and it wouldn't really be an issue.

FWIW, every firm I know about (and at this point in my career, that's 4 firms) uses calculators. The only difference is whether they use them on the spot or before they decide who to give callbacks to.

Ugh, it's honestly such a braindead and lazy way of deciding things.

No disagreement, but I think important to keep this thread as things actually are and not as we might hope them to be. Every 0.05 of GPA helps. Always.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone comment on my bidlist so far? I really want D.C. lit, but I'm low stone (3.47 GPA)

1. Kirkland & Ellis (N.Y.)(1)
2. Hogan Lovells US (D.C.)(3)
3. Gibson, Dunn (N.Y.)(3)
4. Debevoise (N.Y.)(4)
5. Sidley Austin (D.C.)(6)
6. Weil (N.Y.)(6)
7. Milbank (N.Y.)(8)
8. Cahill (N.Y.)(12)
9. Paul, Weiss (N.Y.)(11)
10. Akin (N.Y.)(14)
11. Cleary (N.Y.)(14)
12. Davis Polk (N.Y.)(15)
13. Akin (D.C.)(18)
14. Gibson, Dunn (D.C.)(18)
15. Fried, Frank (N.Y.)(16)
16. Arnold & Porter (D.C.)(19)
17. Covington (D.C.)(20)
18. Skadden (D.C.)(20)
19. Crowell (D.C.)(21)
20. Jones Day (D.C.)(22)
21. Latham (D.C.)(23)
22. Cravath (N.Y.)(23)
23. Jones Day (N.Y.)(24)
24. Kirkland & Ellis (D.C.)(27)
25. Wilmer Hale (D.C.)(27)
26. Simpson Thacher (N.Y.)(27)
27. Paul, Weiss (D.C.)(29)
28. O’Melveny (D.C.)(*)

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know where a 3.71 is on the curve/percentile? I'm afraid of overbidding myself [but not bidding Proskauer (FFB =3) and bidding Gibson and Skadden and 2 and 3 instead (both have FFB of 3)] but would rather go to one of those two firms if I have a reasonable shot

[Tiago Splitter]

Does anyone know where a 3.71 is on the curve/percentile? I'm afraid of overbidding myself [but not bidding Proskauer (FFB =3) and bidding Gibson and Skadden and 2 and 3 instead (both have FFB of 3)] but would rather go to one of those two firms if I have a reasonable shot

Whatever it is, it's really good.

Why the love of Skadden and GDC? If you're talking non-New York you shouldn't have to bid them super high and if you're talking New York you will likely choose a different firm. I wouldn't take the risk of missing out on a bunch of other bids by putting both so high.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know where a 3.71 is on the curve/percentile? I'm afraid of overbidding myself [but not bidding Proskauer (FFB =3) and bidding Gibson and Skadden and 2 and 3 instead (both have FFB of 3)] but would rather go to one of those two firms if I have a reasonable shot

Whatever it is, it's really good.

Why the love of Skadden and GDC? If you're talking non-New York you shouldn't have to bid them super high and if you're talking New York you will likely choose a different firm. I wouldn't take the risk of missing out on a bunch of other bids by putting both so high.

First - yes I am only bidding NYC. There's no particular reason for the Skadden and GDC love. A lot of the other firms I'm interested in have lower FFB (Cravath, DPW, Cleary) so I didn't think it would be giving up a chance at any of those firms. What makes you say I'd pick elsewhere? Boise/Wachtell/W&C all seem out of the picture.

[smaug]

Does anyone know where a 3.71 is on the curve/percentile? I'm afraid of overbidding myself [but not bidding Proskauer (FFB =3) and bidding Gibson and Skadden and 2 and 3 instead (both have FFB of 3)] but would rather go to one of those two firms if I have a reasonable shot

Whatever it is, it's really good.

Why the love of Skadden and GDC? If you're talking non-New York you shouldn't have to bid them super high and if you're talking New York you will likely choose a different firm. I wouldn't take the risk of missing out on a bunch of other bids by putting both so high.

First - yes I am only bidding NYC. There's no particular reason for the Skadden and GDC love. A lot of the other firms I'm interested in have lower FFB (Cravath, DPW, Cleary) so I didn't think it would be giving up a chance at any of those firms. What makes you say I'd pick elsewhere? Boise/Wachtell/W&C all seem out of the picture.

Definitely bid Boies. You're above their floor, I think. Can't speak to the others.

GDC and Skadden have very strong (and different) cultures. I don't think you'll take Skadden very seriously. Not a knock on the work they do, which is excellent. Just seems particularly brutal, even among brutal firms.